Submitted by Shatner'sBassoon on Fri, 11/06/2015 - 19:48
AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING KALEIDOSCOPIC JOIN-THE-DOTS/ADULT COLOURING BOOK EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT IN NARCISSISTIC/ONANISTIC BIG PICTURE PARASITIC FORUM BLEEDING.
LIKE POLITICAL LIFE, PARTICIPATION IS WELCOME, ENCOURAGED EVEN, BUT NOT NECESSARY.
yikes! have to admire the ceaseless passion of you guys..(i am sure you arent the angry whack-jobs scaring people from the bar you come across as occasionally..)
to stunet in relation to an earlier post about the white australia policy and consequent low quality of immigrants you are part correct. there was however a jewish quota, it was often unfilled due to the governments insistence all immigrants work for the government (usually the railways) for at least 2 years (price of entry to the lucky country) , anyone who could get anywhere else usually did. my estonian (nonjewish) forebears came here on the empty jewish quota (having been rejected by the U.S., canada, and argentina..
all this talk of agendas and media control. I think the left media are just as bad as the right, and are totally complicit in the rise of trump etc. reasonably smart people have always read between the lines, but the accepted narratives now are so contrived it's all become misinformation.
the guardian is especially guilty, their portrayal, (or lack of) of corbyn and sanders is disgusting. personally, no matter the source, I find the real wisdom is in the comments these days, but even the guardians moderating of comments has become a joke.
here's a bit of a thread about the corruption of the DNC process. it appears some very reasonable people are willing to chance or instigate a trump presidency just to stick it up the establishment. scary times, I hate to say it, but I reckon he's going to win, the mood in the US is fuck the system
"fuck the system, it can't help me, I don't need society!"
love that shit, but worrying times when this becomes the mainstream attitude
People are beginning to reject the two-party system, because they're beginning to see that even their own party is just a vehicle of corporate greed and power. The way you reject the two-party system is by voting for a third party or an independent candidate, and in doing so you run the risk of allowing the greater evil to gain power.
If enough Sanders supporters vote third party, and Trump wins, people will blame Bernie, and people will blame his supporters. It wouldn't be incorrect to do so, from their point of view, because from their point of view the two-party system cannot be questioned, and so voting outside of it is a betrayal of the, at least nominally, left wing party. On the other hand, from a political philosophy perspective, representative democracy requires a citizen to vote for the candidate that most closely mirrors their own beliefs, and for Bernie supporters that candidate is quite clearly Jill Stein, and so they can feel justified in voting for her. Personally, I think any candidate winning any election is not anyone's fault. It's a result of more people wanting that candidate than any other, which is ultimately what representative democracy is all about.
What would be useful in these circumstances would be preferential voting, but neither party in a two-party system would even consider it unless they were consistently losing elections by being outflanked. If you're the sort that recognizes the influence of corporate power in the Democratic or Republican parties and just wants to reform the party rather than threaten the structure of our electoral system, campaign finance reform could make a significant impact, but you'd have to vote for candidates who genuinely support it with serious proposals, like Bernie Sanders, rather than people who pay lip service and offer watered down and ineffectual proposals, like Hillary Clinton. This is really academic, though, as neither party will support either serious electoral or campaign finance reform, as they threaten their existing positions of power, so if these are things you want to see, you have no choice but to vote third party.
Neither party will adjust its line as long as it's winning elections. Both parties fail to deliver the results and the changes they campaign on, and neither is willing to challenge the steady slide into neoliberal empire that we're currently undergoing. The "corporate coup d'etat" as I've heard it referred to. Both will continue to attempt to get by on being the "lesser evil", in what amounts to electoral blackmail.
In the end, people will do what they please, as they always do, and we'll all live with the consequences, good and bad, of whatever results. Be objective, be reasonable, consider the implications as thoroughly as you're able, and cast your vote accordingly. Just make sure that you get to the polls in November. Whether you vote Clinton or Trump or Stein or Johnson or just leave the presidential election blank, there's a lot more to be voting on in November. Congressional and state and local elections are every bit as important. I vote in November for the same reason I drink in public on the fourth of July. Because I can. Take advantage.
Reply Share Facebook Twitter Report
Reply Share Facebook Twitter Report
You have to break eggs to make an omelette. Grumbling about Clinton's corruption whilst voting for her will not change the system. If Trump gets in power, the democrats will be traumatised and wonder how they could have lost against such an obviously flawed candidate. This will lead to some soul searching and hopefully some humility. The self serving establishment is too strong in the US, the EU and in the UK. Sadly the left are, in all three blocs, siding with the the strong and the powerful, the establishment, rather than the poor and disenfranchised. The left has lost sight of its purpose, its heart.
Trump will be a disaster, but after him there will be hope. Clinton will be more of the miserable same and her corruption will be endorsed and more will be encouraged. No change, no hope.
Reply Share Facebook Twitter Report
It's not the 2 party system that's at the core of the problem we have in our government.
Rather, it's money in politics and the inescapable oligarchy this arrangement has spawned. Until we end this system that has made corruption legal in the US, we'll never escape the hold that lobbyists and rich donors have over our politics.
Reply Share Facebook Twitter Report Loading…
Absolutely correct. Great comment.
Reply Share Facebook Twitter Report
I'm agreeing and disagreeing with you in nearly equal measures.
"Grumbling about Clinton's corruption whilst voting for her will not change the system."
That's absolutely correct. The fundamental question is whether you want to change the system, as you and I do, and whether a Trump presidency is a reasonable risk to run in that pursuit, or whether you just look to make tweaks here and there on one issue or another to keep moving forward.
"If Trump gets in power, the democrats will be traumatised and wonder how they could have lost against such an obviously flawed candidate. This will lead to some soul searching and hopefully some humility."
That's highly speculative, and historically, particularly with the Democrats, it's every bit as likely that they'll triangulate and shift to the right.
"Sadly the left are... siding with the the strong and the powerful, the establishment, rather than the poor and disenfranchised. The left has lost sight of its purpose, its heart."
That's certainly true. After Clinton and Blair, the mainstream "left" now fails to offer any genuine opposition to supply-side economic policy. Working people have become a peripheral concern to the parties that were supposed to be representing them. That they've managed to allow Trump to paint himself as the champion of disadvantaged and forgotten workers is a testament to how far off track the left has gone, and is embarrassing in the extreme.
"Trump will be a disaster, but after him there will be hope."
I'd say you're back into speculation again. This is much the same situation we had in 2000, with Stein as Nader, Clinton as Gore, Trump as Bush, and Obama as Clinton. People feel let down by the Democratic party, and they want to vote for a genuine alternative. After Bush won, third party voting was more stigmatized than ever (wrongly, in my view, but that's the majority view of it, and another debate). Who's to say that this time would be any different? The Democrats followed up Gore with Kerry, which was more triangulation than it was rediscovering their roots, so if you're hoping that this will cause a shift in the Democratic party, there's very little precedent for it.
Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. Who knows? I certainly couldn't say, and I won't begrudge anyone their choice in this election. Vote third party to challenge the political system or vote for Clinton to keep out Trump. I could make a good case for either.
Reply Share Facebook Twitter Report
You raise an excellent point, and campaign finance is a pet issue of mine, but I still think the two-party system is the root of the problem with our government, because I think the core problem is that it doesn't effectively represent the people. The influence of private capital just exacerbates and accentuates it. Campaign finance is the easier thing to deal with, as it's just a matter of legislation, and I think it's the more pressing issue, as the conflicts of interest it creates are obvious, but I still think the two-party structure is the fundamental flaw in our political system.
With only two parties you offer representation to only two political perspectives. I think there's a lot more nuance involved than a dichotomous choice is ever capable of representing. If you look at the dispute in the Democratic party, it's centers on the fact that it's no longer a left wing party. They moved away from the left with Bill Clinton, because over 20 years, from '72 to '92 they'd won one election with Jimmy Carter, and he only lasted four years. So to beat the Republicans they felt like they had to move to the middle, which left the left feeling ignored. This sort of thing is bound to happen in cycles as long as you have a two-party system, and inevitably results in a sector of the population feeling unrepresented. With a two-party system you leave fifty percent of voters voting against the other candidate, rather than for the one they pick. Libertarians are no more represented by the Republican party than Socialists are by the Democrats. That's why I think a multi-party system with preferential voting, that in all likelihood would have to govern in coalition, would be much more representative of the electorate, and it would render parties more responsive, as there would be reasonable alternatives if one party lost its way, whereas a liberal in America has to vote Democrat or cast a protest vote because there's nowhere else to go, which means the voter has almost no leverage when it comes to influencing the party. With our current system you have to take what they offer, because the alternative is worse, and that predicament is inherent to a two-party system.
this guy definitely has a downbeat view, and he's an economist, but I think he's good at putting the big picture together. in this case he talks about recent attitudal changes and the influence of technology. I particularly like his assessment of the narcissism and entitlement that has developed in .modern society.
no offence baby boomers, but I reckon youse have fucked up a little, fighting for minor causes and entitlements while the system crumbles around us. I think gen x will be lucky to see basic entitlements like pensions while politicians protect their gold standard pensions and travel allowances. time to focus on, and strip this shit back.
time to work on a triage system to protect the basics I reckon
only politician talking about such things is good old nick x, the rest of the cunts have some seriously messed up priorities
The Revolution Is a Comin’
Why the cycle of indulgence and entitlement is coming to an end
Demolishing three common arguments against gold
Could it get worse for Hillary?
By Vern Gowdie in London
We have the spectacle of two of the most disliked and least trustworthy people in the US vying to be president…the person who is supposed to lead by example. Rather than the emotion stirring a rallying cry of ‘God Bless America’, it should be replaced with one said in forlorn hope — ‘God Help America’.
In addition to the political farce in the US, hardly a day goes by without some form of senseless tragedy being beamed into our living rooms. A new massacre takes centre stage. Rendering ones that happened days, weeks or months ago — think of Nice or Orlando — old news. The frequency of attacks is desensitising us as a society. We are becoming inured to the horror.
Today I’d like to share with you the introduction of a letter I sent my children a few months ago.
My reason for writing the letter was to provide them with another perspective on the trends at play within society…the coming revolutions.
What I omitted in my letter were the political and social ramifications these powerful trends are likely to unleash.
There are always unintended consequences when change takes place. When that change is going to be as disruptive and transformational as I think it is going to be — wholesale job losses, massive downturn in asset markets, longer life expectancies (and the attendant costs and infrastructure that comes with an aging society) — then you can expect those unintended consequences to reach a whole new level.
What we are witnessing in the US and Europe is the tip of the ‘social and political revolution iceberg’. When people lose jobs, money and hope, the social mood darkens. Frustration boils over. Tensions rise. Flashpoints are reached.
It’s critical to our financial, physical and mental wellbeing to stand back from the day to day mayhem, seeking to identify the trends (actions) that are creating the reactions.
In this way, we can hopefully be a little wiser before the event, taking the necessary precautions to protect our family wealth, health and wellbeing. Below is the letter I sent to my children.
‘Everyday I’m reminded about how different the world you are growing up in is to the one from my youth.
‘People taking photos of themselves in provocative poses hoping they will be liked by other self-absorbed wannabes…I don’t get it. In our youth these people were called “show offs” and were generally disliked for being “so far up” themselves. Yet today’s self-obsessed individuals can make a healthy living by getting enough brain dead people to follow them.
‘The abbreviation of the English language is another adjustment I’m still struggling with — thx, fyi, omg, lol. My Grade 7 English teacher — the one who taught us “the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” — would be turning in his grave. Long gone are letter writing skills of yesteryear…commencing a letter with “Dear” and signing off with “Yours Sincerely”. Now, if you’re lucky, it is “Hi” and “Cheers”.
‘Skype and “WhatsApp” are fantastic ways to communicate with each other at no cost. What perplexes me is we don’t pay anything to use these applications yet the companies are valued in the billions of dollars. Either I don’t get it OR these companies are not worth what people think they are.
Twitter is another one I don’t get. Never used it and probably never will. I’d rather take your Mum for a coffee and have a chat. Maybe a few more people are opting to do the same because Twitter recently announced it’s laying off 300 people. This is a company worth US$20 billion and for every share on offer the earnings are MINUS US86 cents. Again I don’t get it.
‘I hear you talk about Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and other forums you use to stay connected.
‘When you have time to actually meet these people I am not sure, but somehow it must work because coffee shops are full of young people…are they working (doing their next self-indulgent pose perhaps), going to Uni or living courtesy of the taxpayer? I don’t know, but they inhabit local cafes in their droves.
‘Then you read about sites like Tinder and Ashley Maddison where single, attached and married people can connect for some casual sex…just like that. What does that say about society’s moral compass? Again, I don’t get it.
‘The purpose of this letter was not to go on a rant (or at least not a complete rant) and confirm just how old-fashioned and out of touch I am. There are some things in this new world of technology that I admit don’t make sense to me, yet there are others I do comprehend.
‘It is these that I would like to share with you.
‘A large percentage of the population operate in a “head down, bum up” fashion. Swept along with the tide of life. Jobs to go to. Bills to pay. Courses to study for. Kids to educate. Careers to worry about. Relationships to manage.
‘Technology has made life easier in some ways, but busier in others. Because so much more can be done over the internet, we have come to expect more to be done. The demands keep escalating. Emails pile up. Text messages “bing” away at us. Photos demand to be liked.
‘All these forms of communication are constantly encroaching on society’s spare time.
‘Not having these distractions provides me with the luxury to read, reflect, comprehend and think.
‘Just because I “think”, it doesn’t mean my conclusions are right. Life can be very complex and throw up all sorts of surprises.
‘One of my warnings when it comes to investing is to be wary of projecting the past into the future. Life is dynamic and the influences that created certain past results may no longer be in play. You have to continually reassess the assumptions you’re basing your decisions on and build in some variables.
‘In looking to the past we can possibly make some broad assumptions about the future and try to gauge the world we are going to encounter in the coming decades.
‘The past century has been one of enormous change.
‘We need to go to museums or antique shops to catch a glimpse of the way the world used to operate.
‘While there were advantages in a world that was a little less complex and slower paced, there were also disadvantages. Infant mortality rates were higher. In a world before antibiotics, illnesses claimed many a life far too young. Your great-great grandfather died in his 30s from an infected tooth. The opportunity to travel abroad — unless it was to fight a war or represent your country for sport — was not an option for the vast majority. Communication was via telegram or letter.
‘Life was simple but also more insulated.
‘The priest, bank manager, headmaster and police sergeant were all respected pillars of the community. Beyond reproach.
‘These days priests and headmasters are tainted by child sex scandals. The bank manager is nothing more than a salesman and the police sergeant could be on the take. How the mighty have fallen — fairly or unfairly — in the eyes of today’s society.
‘We have come a long way (for better or worse) in so many ways.
‘We earn more. We also consume more — goods, services and calories. We are better educated. We are living longer. We are more heavily regulated and governed. We are less independent — we rely far too much on government and its agencies for “solutions”. We are more indebted — home loans, student loans, consumer credit, lines of credit, credit cards. We are in the midst of one of the great periods of transformation in history — technology is only just starting to change our lives.
‘In spite of the contrasts between now and then, some things remain constant.
‘We all die. Booms still bust. Fear and Greed will never go out of fashion. Prosperity is achieved by productivity not the printing presses. It is never ‘different this time’. Too much debt always ends in disaster. If it’s too good to be true, it usually is. While the world gets smarter and faster it is still humans — with all their foibles — who make the decisions. Society and our economy are the sum total of those decisions — good and bad.
‘Millions of collective decisions have created the three big trends that I see influencing our future:
Health revolution — living longer, plan for a working life well beyond today’s accepted retirement age. Expect higher taxes to be paid to finance age pensions and care.
Technological revolution — automation and robotics will drive costs lower and unemployment higher.
Financial revolution — after the next credit crisis, there will be a spurning of debt in favour of savings.
‘Understanding the interaction of these three powerful trends on society in general — and we as individuals — will be important in our endeavour to successful navigate our way through the challenging and exciting years that lie ahead.
From time to time, the world can divorce itself from reality — live beyond its means, push asset prices above fair value, believe central bankers can solve problems with the ‘solutions’ that created those problems — but, eventually, the stresses in the system between the old and new world cause that bubble to burst.
A revolution is nothing more than the full rotation of a cycle.
This cycle of indulgence and entitlement is coming to an end. When it does, there will be both enormous anguish and opportunity.
Position yourself well in advance to be on the side of opportunity.
For The Daily Reckoning
Crikey, Sypo....... Too much, man..... lol....
Re' trump..... I think non compulsory voting is the key..... It'll be interesting to see how many "new' people get off their arse, and either vote for or against him.... I like a bit of chaos...... But Trump is one step too far.... He's outright dangerous..
agree dog, I'm a mix of anarchist and burn the place down and start again, but I've always found solace in me being a minority, times have changed big time
the democrats have really fucked this up, sanders had a chance of dragging crew out of the woodwork, but now trump has that advantage. seriously how could the democrats not take some of this shit on board, fucken arragance of the enth degree
and her running mate is a big banks neoliberal environment isn't important fuckwit. heard the other day they probably chose him to win jaded republicans over, dangerous tactic
There is no mainstream/corporate 'left' media. If you think the Guardian, or the BBC/ABC, or even Fairfax here is 'left', we've really got to look at the whole definitions ball of wax.
Maybe it should be known as 'left of...' corporate media. So those outlets mentioned above could be more accurately described as say, 'left of Murdoch' (barely)
Check that Media Lens site. It eviscerates The Guardian and the BBC in particular, and rightly so. Pro-establishment PR in the main. There's always small cracks and fissures in the edifice of corporate media (like old mate Michael West, " Fairfax's best journo"), it's our job to shine a light on 'em and up 'em.
Trump is a shoe-in. Read it here first...well, second. I posted previously testing the link capability.
Never underestimate reason #5
totally agree turkeyman, sad state of affairs that the abc bbc has become so conservative, guardian too, but they've been dissapointing for a long time
not sure if it's irony or pertinent but for the 30 minutes I've been on here I've been watching a couple of hot chicks at the beach endeavor to capture the perfect selfie, amazing how ignorant much of the public has become, so much information, so many agendas, so much apathy, strange times indeed
sometimes I think women should never have been given the right to vote. some women are totally inro politics, the vast majority totally ignorant, and they even say this too
the ignorant thing, not the no vote thing
“They who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness.” - Milton
The ABC. Still got online 'opinion' pieces but no comments allowed! The drum?! New boss!
Only discovered Media Lens for the first time yesterday (thanks Shats!) and I think that the "dramatic new evidence" test a.k.a. the propaganda blitz test is a good one for assessing whether you're being bullshitted.
WMDs, boat people, children overboard; there's nothing like "emotionally potent oversimplifications" (or just plain lies) to undermine democracy and manufacture consent.
Yep the ABC has totally been brought to heel - time to move on.
And Sypkan, are you fishing regarding the women comment??
not fishing andym, but feel free to let loose, I enjoy it whether you bag me or agree
I am serious though, well a little bit, my most recent girlfriend is a prime example. smart chick, 2 degrees, qualified teacher, and could not even explain to me if john howard was left or right. her best friend whose moderately engaged in politicss was the one that said most women are totally ignorant, they're just not interested, too negativr, too confrontational, too boring
from the horses mouth
All I can say is that the same thing could easily be said of males. "Aww, don't talk to me about politics, I couldn't give a shit".
And when it comes to ignorant pig-headedness, the blokes are streets in front - when it comes to not listening, we're the duck's nuts. Actually, I would go so far to say that the higher the testosterone, the more challenged a guy tends to be at listening. Apply that to the alphas you've encountered.
yeh generally agree andym, but most guys can explain left or right, especially if they're a qualified teacher, seriously this is who's educating our children, not to mention the q land premier who couldn't even give the current GST rate when asked, I find that kind of alarming
maybe it's just my mates, largely an uneducated mob, but they can, and do love a good political debate, while often the chicks say what the fuck are you arguing about?
I said "sometimes" I think this way, ignorant or not, generally more engagement is better, but many women just aren't that interested, fair enough, sometimes I wish my life was so blissful I didn't care
Former NT chief justice Brian Martin named head of royal commision......... FFS...... Here's an interesting fact about good old Brian......:
"Brian Martin, the former NT Supreme Court Chief Justice, achieved infamy among Aboriginal communities in April 2010 when he described five white youths who bashed an Aboriginal man to death in a racially charged drunken rampage as “of otherwise good character”.
From New matilda...
It's a stage that all kids go through Sheepy.
Yes Turkeywurkey,you are correct..I called it in my mind long ago....put the cat among the pigeons?....I don't think so,Trump may talk as if he's a radical.However, once the dust settles,he's not in a place that's familiar.My view is he will calm down once the jobs done.
Its time for something new,Uncle Same is boring.
The sad thing I have observed since Monday night is the seeming sullen acceptance by Aboriginals welfare and legal officers working in the field that this sort of stuff was being handed out to the kids .... like there are no surprises , sort of expected it, just another kick in the teeth. Initially thought Turnbull was acting in good faith but with Martin's appointment and more importantly no involvement by relevant Aboriginal peak bodies I'm now of the mind that this was a preemptive move to hose it all down before it gained too much momentum, we will see, but eventually it has to be broadened to include WA and Qld and probably NSW as well. I note the thugs that dished out this treatment are tonight still employed in that facility supervising some of the very same kids ...... WTF, how can that occur?
Sadly, this is all very familiar given I had a role in overseeing the implementation of some recommendations of the Deaths in Custody Royal Commission in my state and incarnation rates of Aboriginals have only escalated since.
My other thought here is remember the outrage of the west in some quarters when it was discovered American military personal were waterboarding, stripping and placing sacks over Iraqi solders in Iraq and later America's torture of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay? Well, where is the outrage here with adult prison staff inflicting similar treatment on kids?
Have we all become that desensitised to this sort of brutality given many of us have supported the 15 year demonisation of refugees and their plight in our offshore detention centres?
I like your optimism quadzilla
surely some good has to come from this craziness other than the return on the $100 I'll put on trump to win when I get home, I dare say the odds have decreased by now though.
I'm not overly concerned either, there's a big powerful machine behind him with checks and balances that'll keep him in line if he gets the gig.
I think the media from both sides have been hysterical about him anyway, and are part to blame for his rise. as a chick on american PBS said the other day, his rise is due to hyperbolic headlines about what he has said, gaining attention from everyone, but when you read or listen to what he has actually said it's not that bad anyway. he grabs attention then backs off from the original statement making concessions. he played the media for all they're worth, and won. they say he's dumb, I don't think so, he's a master of the media. he's also quite socially progressive, they also say he's against lbgt community etc. but that's all bullshit. they just labelled him with all the usual slurs, overused cliches that carry little weight anymore, due to overuse. fuck, he used to be a major donor to the democrats, and billary were guests at his wedding, all is not as it seems, or has been hyped to be. fucken media, they're the real villains in this whole scenario
as many have said, we survived 8 years of bush, how bad can it get?
Floyd and Sheepy
I'm not sure what it says about me and my view of Australia or humans in general but I was surprised that everyone is so surprised.
Are Australians so naive and arrogant that they think that stuff like this doesn't happen in Australia?
Have the nationalists blown sunshine up our arses for so long that Australians think that the rest of the world does this (especially the black and brown countries) but Australians are better?
Early call. If Trump gets elected he will be impeached within 12 months.
Still over here in the US. I've been thinking trump would win since February, when I was here last. So much free press generated by his media play. The man knows how to draw attention away from his rivals and to himself. Also, imagine the typical angry middle aged man who's convinced the world is rooned. That's him and that's many people in America, man and woman.
But this time I think the tide is turning. The novelty has worn off in the media I think and now the reporting has shifted a bit from disbelief and amazement about something he said that is therefore newsworthy, to more of an eye roll and derisiveness. So he's not getting as much free press and the election itself will be more traditional, tactically speaking, than the primaries were.
I'm really optimistic about the future. One thing that has caused capitalism to fail is market failure due to imperfect information among the masses. People are generally good and will make decisions in their own interests but temper them when they have full knowledge of their impact. Not everyone but many. The amount of information we have access to in our pockets now is staggering. Companies like uber capture that and let us take advantage of working together. Now that particular app has its issues, like drivers getting screwed by working for no super and overtime etc, but it's an example of how transformative a time we're walking into.
The future will be defined by the kids growing up now with this kind of tech as the norm. Better decisions will be made by consumers collectively because we'll have more info about the consequences of them. I'm talking 20- 50 years ahead here.
Tonybarber, sounds a cop out to me. You gotta go pretty far over the top to have stu pull a comment. Can you try again? I'm still convinced you're not against triggs because of something she did wrong. I think you're against her because you don't like the existence and role of the commission.
Ok, Benski, I may try again but I can assure you the posting got dumped. I have absolutely no problems with an existence of a commission for various social rights. Again, if I get pulled, try yourself to ask the meanings directly from the relevant commissioners. It's important that you review exactly what the role of the commission is. This goes to the heart of why I believe Triggs is incompetent. She has politicised a role which really should not have been.
Let's see if Stu has some strength.
Hang on...I haven't deleted anything from TB. Two posts got deleted in the Pauline Hanson thread, neither from Tones.
Was one of the comments mine Stu? I typed something which was a little controversial yet by no means racist or offensive. Don't think I saw it in the thread whether that was a mistake of mine in posting the comment or censorship from you guys? Im not fussed either way just wondering if the comment was deemed to be inflammatory or encouraging vigilante groups.
Tones, there's been issues with posting links, it should be ok if you prove that you're not a spambot.
Ok, Benski, it seems there are 'issues'. Well, maybe my post did go the way of the gremlins. The CIA ? Maybe the Russians. Who knows. But I need to prove I'm not a 'spambot'. Ahhh, to outsmart this artificial intelligence. Stephen Hawking maybe right. Beware of the BOTS.
Nah, wont say who's they were, but yours wasn't one of them.
No worries AndyM mentioned theres been issues with posting links. My comment had a link to an abc news article regarding the formation of Vigilante style neighbourhood watches in Western Melb. Is there an issue posting links occasionally?
Following a major increase in automated SPAM attacks a few weeks ago (in our forums and article comments), we've been trying to tweak our SPAM software to provide the best fit. Note: these spam attacks are not done by people. They're randomly sent out across the internet and websites that use particular kinds of software are vulnerable targets.
At its extreme setting, the software requires everyone who comments to pass through a series of confirmation screens to ensure the poster - and its content - is genuine (which is a terrible user experience).
But if we turn it off, anyone can post and we're much more likely to be spammed. Which is really bad for us (as we have to monitor it all the time) and also a bad user experience for you guys (as you have to sift through the spammy posts).
Somewhere in the middle is a compromise, and we're still yet to find the best fit. Unfortunately, the current setting is oevr-reacting (erroneously) to genuine website links, which is a pain in the arse. We're trying to improve the situation but it's a little tricky. Thanks for your patience everyone.
Ben, see attached invoice.
Also, if you're interested in herbal Viagra?
Sorry mate, I prefer my Viagra fully-laden wth chemicals.
Thanks for the answer Ben on a lighter note how do you like to take your Viagra the traditional oral dose, inhaling it in powdered form or the new craze which provides an instant reaction via Rectal insertion?
Actually, I've adopted a brand new technique - sprinkle it 'round the bonfire, let the smokey goodness infiltrate a damp towel tied around my head, then wring out the moisture into a small tumbler glass.
Add a slice of lemon, a few cubes of ice, and voilà.
hope you are a patient man benski, tones is yet to answer your questions ......
How's that fentanyl stuff, Mad Turkey?!
Bloody baby boomers. First Viagra, then it'll be shuffling off this mortal coil in comfort and style with that stuff (if Nembutal is too much of a hassle).
Any thoughts on the PM not endorsing Rudds UN Secretary General bid?
I'm team Aussie but I just can't see him getting the respect that that role commands.
I would oppose Rudd for any post anywhere at any time. He is untrustworthy, incompetent and a closet misogynist. If he made Secretary General I would immediately start work on the bunker and stock up on canned food, WW3 would be just around the corner.
Given the turmoil f the Rudd / Gillard years, I can't see anyone really confident that he could make a good UN secretary. We have got to be fair dinkum here ...
Krudd got what he deserved .....
Good call by our fearless leader...choke.....anyway fuk Dudd
Rudd always gets screwed, he took on the mining giants and they screwed him then his own party screwed him, saved our arses from the global financial crisis and everyone still wants to screw him over.
Please Stunet give me an ignore button for Talking Turkey, Shatners Basoon, Dale Cooper, Factotum, Pupkin, and any new fake profile he decides to create.
Krudd, the Sunrise kid, Howard-lite, snubbed by Turdstill, the fizzer, the man with his pills in the vice squeezed by the right-wing nuts in his own party.
What a shit-show. Australia, you're standing in it!
Rudd with his primary school- level petulance stoops to the standards set by the vindictive little boys of the Liberal party.
As my heart swells with pride...
Jeez, where's the fentanyl when you need it?
Regardless of what people think of Kevy, a deal is a deal...... As turkmanistans link shows, Old mal gave Rudd the hand shake.....
What a embarrassment this nation is...... A farce..... A laughing stock......
Nothing more to say, really.....
"Nothing more to say, really....."
Somehow I doubt that ;-)
Floyd I am patient so not going crazy yet. Tonybarber, I am genuinely interested in what you have to say on this. I still don't know what she did that politicised the role. It what she did that was outside the statutory authority of the role. I'm interested because you're a dissenting voice here. But you haven't specified why yet. The rest of this incoherent baying mob, despite their faults, are generally happy to put down what actions or events led them to their positions.
@benski, don't hold your breath, Tones don't answer direct questions.
@sheepy, still holding to your position on the election result? Yes Labor lost but given your comment above about Krudd/Tony Turnbull you must surely see that TT is a spineless weak leader of a divided party with a whole 3 years of public / press/ legislative scrutiny ahead of it. Its a very poor outcome for the country but come the next election it be a whitewash.
Benski, maybe TB is not answering because a couple of people above are ready to pounce if he mentions the Triggs report into child detention and her going into bat for a detainee with a lengthy violent criminal history as well as being a convicted rapist and killer, recommending that he be released into Australian society and compensated to the tune of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. Sure, maybe she's following the letter of the law but to some other people, that might be just a little bit on the nose.
I'm sure she'd be more than willing to put him up in her granny flat though and keep an eye on him.
It's a sticky, chewy, nutty, chocolatety situation balancing individual human rights with the safety of others.
nah you're wrong zen I pounce on everything Tones says as he has a very long history of putting it out there without nailing his nuts to the mast on any issue, but to take a leaf out of benski's book what documents are you precisely quoting or misquoting from ... I'd like to read all about that.
I'm surprised everyone is so anti k rudd. I never really cared for him either way, but thought he was alright, maybe he just looked good given the lead up. yeh he was a bit of a egotistical control freak, but he's a bloody smart one.
maybe not a good leader, but probably great in a solo position like this one. even as a leader i think he's the best one in recent times in terms of a big cohesive vision. his mining tax was spot on, and had good intentions regarding climate change, unfortunately greens blew that one and his own party fucked up the mining tax. Australia would be in a much better position now if these things developed, and maybe not so angry and devided as well, cos we are both these things in spades thanks to events post k rudd 1.0. like was said in that killing season show, the party should learnt to work with him, and possibly pulled him into line to make things workable, that's what the public wanted
floyd I am really genuinely interested on your thoughts on where to head with indigenous australians at this point in time. from what i see kids are getting locked up as a result of the effects of intergenerational trauma, adults too, really unfortunate but this does breed dangerous citizens, and is very difficult to treat, a nasty cycle. with all the recent trouble at arrakun a panel on the drum (including that mundine fellow) had a heated debate with no solution whatsoever, a call for law and order to pervail, while avoiding locking people up, was the general outcome, seems impossible really. the aboriginal elders asking the police to do their job, while the police claim they cannot do their job due to cultural sensibilities and political correctness, a really nasty situation, 'wicked problems' as one academic puts it. trauma doesn't go away and even if we get the solution right we will feel the effects for generations to come. if we get this wrong the shame of this nation will become beyond outrageous.
really really interested in your thoughts